Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

New Zogby Poll

From a recent Zogby poll: "While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,' 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was 'to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.'" Not sure where to put this information though, or if it even belongs here. It's also not clear whether they actually believe the disinformation though; the same poll found that "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately."[1]

this article is a piece

no one has taken the time to break it up cuz it's a piece. skizznologic3.1 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Another Iraq story gets debunked

"The story of Saddam training foreign fighters to hijack airplanes was instrumental in building the case to invade Iraq," a detailed report in the March-April issue says. "But it turns out that the Iraqi general who told the story to the New York Times and 'Frontline' was a complete fake a low-ranking former soldier whom Ahmed Chalabi's aides had coached to deceive the media."[2]--Holland Nomen Nescio 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

to shorten the article the Statements could be moved here--> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda thoughts?

--Whywhywhy 13:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I also think it should be broken down into sections on different pages - it is true this is far too large and unwieldy. The timeline could perhaps be split into pre-2003 and post-2003 to separate what was known before the invasion of Iraq from information that has come to light later. Or perhaps we could just give each year it's own page? Another idea is to organize the major points raised -- even with all the stuff on the timeline, there are only a few major stories -- the meetings with Hijazi, the Salman Pak camps, the meeting that never took place with Atta, the relationship with Zarqawi, the documents now being released. The rest of the points are relatively minor and based on confusion over names and on testimony from al-Libi and Curveball and the like that has been totally rejected by intel agencies. We could put the major stories on their own pages (there is already a Salman Pak page, for example) with links from the timeline; that would shorten things a bit. Also, the Harmony/Docex documents could have their own page, and we could have a page for the Saddam tapes. This is a huge undertaking that I'm not going to begin at this time but it's something to keep in mind for the future; as new documents are released by the Pentagon we will want to include summaries of the relevant ones here so I think the 2006 section will keep growing (it's already one of the bigger ones). In the meantime though, definitely put the quotes on wikisource.--csloat 19:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

TDC censors conservatives

I am not going to enter a revert war over this, but I think it is pretty silly to censor the word "conservative" when it appears in valid places (CNSNews, for example, is an openly conservative source. I had a nice talk with David Thibault, for example, and he seemed to feel no shame about calling himself or his news outlet "conservative.") It's strange, though amusing, that TDC finds enough shame in the label that he would need to censor it for fear of "poisoning the well." I think it does belong here in some places such as the CNSNews stuff, it isn't necessary in others (like the sentence describing Robert Novak). But I'm not going to insist on it -- congratulations, Mr. Dead Chickens (or Curmudgeon, or whatever it is you want us to call you this week); you "win."--csloat 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Docex document on Mukhabarat

The recently added stuff from Investor's Business Daily is mentioned as if it were a document written by Saddam's secret service. It is actually a web page from the FAS that was based on information from 1997; the summary was likely written by John Pike or another FAS writer. It is interesting information but hardly new and certainly not the "manual for Saddam's spy service" that the Investor's Business writer thinks it is. This should be obvious, as the freaking document has the FAS information all over it. The reason this is included in the stash is the web page was found printed out with arabic writing on the printout -- there is no indication on the leavenworth website what the arabic writing means, nor is there any information about the significance of the document. This illustrates a problem with Hoekstra's proposal to let the blogosphere determine the significance of these documents -- a lot of morons will say a lot of stupid things about them. (Don't get me wrong, I support them being released too, but I don't think we should trust everything some random person says about them, no matter how official sounding their blog title is). I think this section should be removed from the article until we have some real information about what the Arabic writing is on the document; as it is the entry is sheer misinformation.--csloat 20:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The addition of the IBD article was my edit. Looking back now, it's not really helpful - especially given the >100kb size of this page. Again, I was trying to find some relevant recent translations of the DOCEX documents from a reputable source. I'll remove both your and my additions. Benny the Beaver 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I don't like to delete information that others add, but in this case I think it's the best bet -- the IBD blog is just wrong about the document itself (and it seems pretty obvious; again just looking at the document you see the FAS web page markings all over it).-csloat 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Silverback/TDC deletion

I'm not sure why the neocons who edit this page think it is so important to censor the first sentence in the following two:

To critics of the Bush Administration, these documents appear "too good to be true." The release of the documents right before the November 2004 election has caused some to wonder if the documents were forged as a sort of October Surprise to help the Republican Party.[citation needed] Even one conservative writer questioned the timing and manner of the documents release and raised serious questions about the documents' veracity.[3] CNSNews has posted translations of some of the documents online and has invited journalists and terror experts to study the documents in person in their corporate offices.

The second sentence doesn't make a lot of sense without the first explaining the timing issue. TDC has deleted the source for the first sentence (where the "too good to be true" quote is from) since he doesn't like sourcewatch (even though it is edited by known experts in public relations and media studies). I don't disagree with his reasoning; sourcewatch is a wiki, so anyone could edit it, but there is no reason to eliminate the sentence indicating why the timing of the documents is suspect. In fact the quote "too good to be true" in connection to these documents has been used by bloggers across the political spectrum, so Silverback's deletion of it is ludicrous. I added the {{Fact}} tag but people like Silverback and TDC prefer to delete information they don't agree with rather than doing research to find out if there is counter-information. This is disruptive of wikipedia. I am returning the sentence with the fact tag; if someone wants to pick a citation from the above google search or find another one from a published source, that would be great, and if you want to change it, fine, but don't just delete the sentence, as it provides context for the sentence that follows. Sometimes basic readability issues are more important than legitimating your POV.--csloat 20:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown:
To critics of the Bush Administration what critics?, these documents appear "too good to be true." The inclusion of the quotation marks implies that this is a direct quote from someone notable, but it is, in fact, the speculaiton of Sourcewatch contributor 24.57.157.81 The release of the documents right before the November 2004 election has caused some to wonder who are these "some" who wonder? if the documents were forged as a sort of October Surprise to help the Republican Party. And who specifically believes that this was some grand strategy of another October Surprise?
Context is meaningless unless it can be sourced, otherwise it is WP:OR. Sourcewacth does not conform to WP:V standards. If you can argue that either of these is not true, than do so. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Context is not meaningless; it is essential in order to understand what the next sentence means! And I added a fact tag so please source the claim if you like. And I also gave you a google search above with 100-plus references. Please stop removing this sentence.--csloat 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but a google link to a bunch of blogs also does not satisfy WP:CITE, as the vast majority of blogs are not allowed for use as a primary source on most issues. I also doubt you would let anyone else slide with a fact tag. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
First stop making assumptions about what I would do - you're incorrect completely about that. Second, some statements are verifiable with blogs, such as the comment that some opponents of the war have made such and such a statement. In fact it is not opponents but supporters too! The blogs are verifiable measures of what bloggers are saying, and in this case the only people talking about the CNS documents at all are bloggers! They are not mentioned in any reputable news source at all. Finally, I think all of this is bogus, since at best the documents may establish that Saddam had something to do with Sudan in 1993 -- hardly the "smoking gun" the CNS folks pretend it is.--csloat 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Its all about WP:V, provide the V, or out it goes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It has been provided. I have established above why the blogs are meaningful in this context. Please don't revert this again.--csloat 22:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
All you have provided is a link to google which shows comments from blogs, not even the opinions of the bloggers! You have established nothing with your above arguement:
  • Self-published sources
  • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.
Your source does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • warning your article has been targeted by a known troll, please keep your hands and arms inside the wikipedia at all times, and wait for the TDC to get bored, or become distracted by a shiny object, like a paperclip, or a bottle cap--205.188.116.131 22:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

TDC, it's obvious this is very personal for you, and that you see this as a way of continuing your harrassment of me, so I will just back off. I have no further interest in this revert war; it's clear you are just using this crap to bait me, and I don't have time for it. I have stated clearly why blogs are relevant for the limited claim being made. The CNS news article is blown way out of proportion on this page, since there is not a single reputable news source that will even acknowledge the absurd claims they make. Blogs are relevant as a measure of opinions about the topic. Now we have a sentence about the National Review article that makes no sense because there is no indication why the "timing" would be an issue -- that is what I meant by providing context here. But I'm sick of your bullying; I will leave it to other editors to address the readability and comprehensibility issues here.--csloat 22:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PS thanks for the warning, anon, I believe you are correct.--csloat 22:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not personal for me, but I am touched that you think it is. I am not harassing you, as I have been involved in this article on and off for longer than you I believe. You have argued that blogs are relevant, and I have pointed to the policy stating unequivocally why they are not. I have addressed the NRO article, and it makes sense to me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You really think who was here longer has any relevance? This attitude is part of the problem. I have stated unequivocally why I think they are relevant in this instance, a direct refutation of your blanket statement that they are not because they are "rarely" legitimate. Argh... I'm responding to the troll again.--csloat 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Dont call me a troll just because you cannot justify an edit. Its in poor taste, and violates WP:NPA. I have already explained why your edits are not relevant. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't addressed my argument at all.-csloat 05:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

October Surprise

"despite President Bush's plea not to "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty," several members of his administration have—to varying degrees—tried to tie the attacks to Saddam Hussein. These claims owe much to scholar Laurie Mylroie's efforts over the past decade to link Iraq to everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to TWA Flight 800." Village Voice, February 2006
"Laurie Mylroie, who authored the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America," and advised Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represent "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism" against the U.S. Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com , she said, include "correspondence back and forth between Saddam's office and Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence agency). They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time." CNSNews, October 2004

Please help me understand what's being disputed. The view that Mylroie's documents might be an 'October Surprise'? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What's disputed is that some people considered that the documents might be an Oct Surprise. It's an admission made by numerous voices left and right in the blogosphere, and it's an obvious question raised by the timing of the CNS news story. It's just not that relevant though; the documents discuss nothing useful, as we've seen, beyond the events of early 1993. But that doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists from pretending these documents are the big smoking gun they've all been desperately hoping for. TDC pretends this has something to do with verifiability but he conveniently ignores that the fact to be verified is whether or not bloggers were making this point, something blogs are uniquely situated to demonstrate. Like I said, though, it's not important, and I'm not going to keep pressing the case since TDC thinks it's so vital to censor this minor detail.--csloat 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Its like I have said, find a source that backs this which complies wtih WP:V, and it can stay. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Calling people names like 'Studley' is quite rude, and very unbecoming to your argument. Please stop. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

This article contains much factual content, but its all skewed. The very first section is a criticism of the alleged connection. So basically the allegations are being criticized before they're even presented. There is no counter-section that summarizes the supporter's allegations. It's all criticism. Except for the pre-intelligence report, which is conveniently placed at the end of the article.

Hypocrisy strikes again. CJK 01:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What hypocrisy? The section is a basic statement of the facts -- the Saddam/AQ conspiracy has been rejected by every intelligence agency and independent commission on earth that actually examined it. The supporter's allegations are summarized in the same section. They are also listed, one by one, meticulously, throughout the timeline. You just seem upset that the conclusion of every expert to examine the issue is a conclusion you disagree with; that is not something to blame wikipedia for.
On another note - Why did you place a {{Fact}} tag on the very first sentence? Do you doubt its veracity? Were you living under a rock between 2002-2003? Or are you just trying to waste people's time that you don't agree with?--csloat 02:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget it man. You have no understanding of NPOV if you think that it's OK to immediately jump into criticizing the issue before its even presented. I will not be replying to this any more if your goal is just to insult me. CJK 15:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't mean to insult, but I found your inclusion of fact tags on an obvious point to be trifling. Nothing personal was intended.--csloat 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ansar Al Islam

This article quotes Ackerman as saying that Ansar Al Islam was being protected by U.S. warplanes. This is simply untrue. The Northern no-fly zone was many miles north of the area under their control. no fly zones, Ansar Al-Islam. CJK 15:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the quote. Ackerman said:
"Far from being "harbored" by Saddam, Ansar al Islam operated out of northeastern Iraq, an area under Kurdish control that was being protected from Saddam's incursions by U.S. warplanes. " [4]
And according to the Council on Foreign Relations:
"Originally based in an enclave wedged between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran , it has been active throughout northern Iraq." [ [5]
So while the base at Biyara (which the U.S. bombed in March, 2003) was not within the no-fly-zone in the graphic you provided (I haven't researched it myself to verify), Ackerman's statement is indeed true. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Ansar Al-Islam was not under "Kurdish control" and that any "protection" they received was purely coincidental. CJK 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That point is not in conflict with Ackerman. He did not say Ansar Al-Islam was, he said the region was. Therefore, a non-issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He said the area where Ansar Al-Islam operated was "under Kurdish control". It was not. It was outside of Kurdish control, between Kurdistan and Iran. No "no-fly zone" existed in that area. CJK 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This page needs a rewrite

There has been a long debate about the link between Saddam and Osama. Newly released documents, the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents, show that the link was real. Additional information is coming out almost everyday. I have made a small entry in the Introduction only. The page is behind times and I am too busy to keep it up myself. I am hoping some editors are willing to step forward and clean up this article. RonCram 08:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ron; I see you're up to your old tricks. The page is not "behind the times"; if you'll look at the edit history you will note that the documents have already been discussed in the 2006 section. Your entry to the intro puts a huge amount of significance on documents that have not been considered significant by the Bush Administration or by the mass media. I have corrected the language of your entry; as usual, your comments are totally one-sided and they exaggerate what "links" have been proven. Let us know when you finish translating the Abu Zubaydah document; there is no evidence from the army website that suggests that that document is a letter to the Iraqis or that it suggested cooperation with the Iraqi government; nor do we even know when it is from. The other document is interesting, at least from what I can tell based on the summary of it reported in various news outlets, but the claim about AQ's attack in Saudi Arabia is conjecture -- there never was any evidence of the Iraqis being behind those attacks or of any cooperation there. There never was even speculation about that and now the only source that seems to speculate on it is newsmax. Perhaps we should wait until professional journalists and analysts take a look before reporting every speculation in the blogosphere as a confirmed fact. I also see you have made a page for the documents, which is fine, but it is totally one sided and makes numerous false statements. I don't have time to correct them all now but I will get to it eventually. Finally, I see you have left a mess on a bunch of unrelated pages to clean up -- blanket statements that these documents prove an "operational relationship" between Saddam and AQ are blatantly false, and they do not belong on the George Bush page or other pages you have put them on. I hope other editors are willing to step in and help me clean up the mess you have left us.--csloat 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The evidence from the Army website is that the document is part of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents, the majority of which were seized in Baghdad. The speculation on Iraq being involved in the attacks in Saudi Arabia is not limited to Newsmax. If you had read the article closely, you would have noted that the quote below came from ABC News:
"Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct 'joint operations against foreign forces' in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden."
Any doubt about the existence of an operational relationship is quickly fading because of these documents. Not only is ABC News coming around, but so are Sen. Bob Kerrey, a 9/11 Commission member, and other members of the media. Your effort to "clean up" my entries are just further efforts at censorship. There is no way you or any other wikipedia editor will be able to keep the story of these documents from coming out. RonCram 20:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
First, nobody is calling them the "Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents" but you. It's a minor point, but we will change the name of that page in due time. Second, tThe ABC article says "it is interesting to note" the al Qaeda attack; it does not claim that the attack was launched by Iraq (in fact it even says the militants were trained by OBL). Certainly ABC news is a little more careful about the post hoc fallacy than you are or the writers at newsmax. As for your claim that I am "censoring" things, please, Ron, this is a tired old refrain from you that nobody is buying anymore. Whine all you want, but I will not condone blatant falsities and mendacious exaggerations being inserted into wikipedia, and I will challenge basic disinformation in spite of the fact that you will launch personal attacks accusing me of censorship. I realize you are all excited that one new document appears to confirm something over a decade old that you think is somehow connected to the Saddam/OBL relationship in the early 2000s, and I don't want to deny you your excitement. But all I ask is that when you are inserting material in wikipedia, please stick to the facts.-csloat 00:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
csloat, I withdraw my claim of censorship on your part. However, Ryan is still guilty of it. She has completely deleted the entry you modified. All I am asking is that the facts be represented. If you honestly believe my conclusions are not justified, we can talk about it. I do not want to overstate the case. I do think I jumped the gun on my view the Abu Zubaydah letter was conclusively written to the Iraqis. I still think there is a strong possibility it was, but I think the article should mention the Abu Zubaydah letter while stating the recipient of the letter is still unknown at this time. The article also has to point out that many people are changing their view on the link because of these documents, including Bob Kerrey of the 9/11 Commission. RonCram 15:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Your personal attacks fall on deaf ears. Your edit was introduction of falsehoods and assertions without proof. It is not censorship to remove disputed, misattributed and/or uncited text. I am not censoring you - but your edit is indefensible with fact and therefore unworthy of Wikipedia.
A response to your post In detail, so perhaps you will cease your baseless and bad-faith accusations of censorship:
The U.S. government is currently releasing documents that shed new light on this topic. FALSE: there is no new, proven evidence of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Saddam. The new documents are called the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. FALSE: they are being called that by some. So far, the documents suggests Saddam and Osama were willing to work together. FALSE. Proof? Eight months after an offer of operational partnership, U.S. forces in the region were attacked by al-Qaeda operatives. FALSE. There is no proof of such an offer. Another document is a statement by Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative, about al-Qaeda's capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the U.S. What proof is there that this has anything to do with cooperation with Iraq? It is not not known for certain if the recipients of the letter were Iraqi officials. Ah. Commission member Bob Kerrey has said these documents will further enlighten us on the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. When we're enlightened with fact, then it will be worth including here on Wikipedia. ' These new documents suggest the conclusion of the Intelligence Community that no "operational" ties existed may need to be reassessed. FALSE. Proof? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, you make some strange claims.

  • These new documents are shedding new light. If you had bothered to read the links, you would know what I'm talking about. For example, the NY Sun article "Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show:"[6]
While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.

The article also talks about 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerry:

A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
  • The documents are called Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. That is the name given to the documents by the U.S. government. If you go to the website, you can read the name for yourself. I don't make this stuff up.
  • You say the documents do not prove that Saddam and Osama were willing to work together. The 1995 memorandum (the one eight months prior to the attack on US forces) shows they were willing to work together. Look at this quote:
A reporter for the Weekly Standard, Steven Hayes, yesterday said he thought the memorandum of the 1995 meeting demolishes the view of some terrorism experts that bin Laden and Saddam were incapable of cooperating for ideological and doctrinal reasons.
"Clearly from this document bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam to achieve his ends, and clearly from this document Saddam did not immediately reject the idea of working with bin Laden," Mr. Hayes said. "It is possible that documents will emerge later that suggest skepticism on the part of Iraqis to working with bin Laden, but this makes clear that there was a relationship."
  • The statement that these documents may require a reassessment on the operational cooperation of Saddam and al-Qaeda is almost a direct quote for the news article:
The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
My comments should be strange to you only if basic journalistic standards are strange. I read every comment and did my research. On it's own 'The Sun' is not a credible source for anything more than attributed opinion and in this case, its uncorroborated, unverified assertions are not fact. To quote Wikipedia:
"Like the Washington Times, which was launched as a conservative rival to the Washington Post, the Sun is close to the Republican Party and neoconservative intellectuals."
Neither an uncorroborated article in the Sun, nor Hayes's Weekly Standard itself can seen as neutral sources in this matter. They are part of an information distribution effort, a cherry-picking of intelligence. And falsely claiming conclusions from documents the sources themselves admit they cannot verify to be authentic does not substitute for fact. Uncorroborated assertions are not facts. Your argument falsely represents opinions, based on unverified 'evidence', as fact. The propagandistic naming of the documents is an ancillary matter, so I'll leave that be. You represent these points as if they are facts - but they are not. They can be included, but they should be described as what they are - claims. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, the documents tell us that Saddam broadcast sermons because Osama asked him too. That was big news. No one knew why Saddam chose to do this. Now we know. Because they were working together. Your claim that the NY Sun is conservative says nothing against their credibility. What if said the NY Times was not credible because they are liberal? Does that help us have a conversation? If the NY Sun was wrong about something, point out the wrong. You can't just say "They are conservatives so they can't be trusted!" That's ridiculous. You cannot call an article in the NY Sun that quotes Bob Kerry as uncorroborated. The documents themselves corroborate the article. As for the Weekly Standard, it is one of the most highly respected journals in Washington. Go to my User Page and read the praise the Weekly Standard has generated from people of all political stripes. It is among the most respected investigative journals being published today. We now know there was a working relationship between Saddam and Osama. That does not mean Saddam sponsored the 9/11 attacks, so do not jump to conclusions. But Saddam was a significant enemy of the U.S. and he did cooperate with al-Qaeda. If you think any of my statements has overreached the evidence I link to, you may certainly point that out in Talk and edit my comment. But this wholesale deleting of the entry has to stop. The entry is well-sourced and conservatively written. csloat, made a few changes to it but even he did not delete it wholesale. Your censorship has to stop. RonCram 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, your personal attacks have to stop. Your bad faith towards me and your insistence on positioning rumor as fact are equally disrespectful.
All your statements in the section in dispute overreach the evidence. The Weekly Standard itself said:
"The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."
Therefore, your statements like the documents tell us and The documents themselves corroborate the article. are patently untrue and unsubstantiated. As I've said all along on this,please provide the proof that the documents are 1. authentic and 2. corroborated (not reporting falsehood). And similarly, though you try to move the goalposts and spin your argument, I have consistently pointed out what is wrong with this propaganda push - that it repeats as fact assertions made about unauthenticated, unverified documents. The very same thing you are doing here. The Sun article and the Weekly Standard offer no proof that the documents themselves are authentic. Quite the opposite.
Therefore, any claims made as to their contents are purely speculative. If you want to report these allegations, you must present them as what they are. Do not jump to conclusions. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ron, broadcasting sermons is not the same as planning terrorist attacks. That was not "big news" to anyone. It is not even mentioned in most mainstream media reports about the OIF documents. We don't know that they "were working together," at least not based on any evidence; you are reasoning from your conclusion! As for your claim that the Weakly standard is "one of the most highly respected journals in washington," that's a crock and you know it. It is not a "journal" in the scholarly sense at all, of course, and it is not "respected" by anyone but right wing ideologues. It is an opinion rag and everyone in Washington knows it. The evidence that Saddam broadcast radical sermons is not proof of any conspiracy. We know for a fact that since the mid-1990s, when there were meetings, that the Saddam/AQ relationship fell apart. We also know for a fact what OBL thought of Saddam -- these are matters of public record, not untranslated documents hidden in some Iraqi government office. If you want to play "jump to conclusions," that's your business, but please do not insist on dragging down wikipedia in your leaps of ill logic.--csloat 21:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, let's be honest, shall we? The documents were all seized in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one doubts this. The biggest reason the government website puts the disclaimer that the documents have not be authenticated is that they are afraid of offending foreign governments whose dirty laundry is aired out in public. The fact Russia betrayed us, a fact that is clear from the documents but denied by Russia, causes people at the State Department to be uncomfortable. That is the biggest reason for the caveat. That being said, it is also possible some documents were "created" by IIS in an effort to disinform. It would not be the first time. However, in terms of sheer numbers, this would be a very, very small number of documents. The vast majority of these documents are authentic and everyone considers them so. It would not serve Saddam's regime to "create" documents showing a link between his regime and al-Qaeda. Your statement that any claim based on these documents is pure speculation is patently false. You cannot claim an entry is unsubstantiated when links are in the text. You have to admit these documents are significant and that readers deserve to know about them. Your wholesale censorship has to end, Ryan. RonCram 22:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
When one source claims something is a fact (like the veracity of an unauthenticated, unverified document), and then another source cites that first source as corroboration of a repeated claim, that does not make it authentic. Your post and rationale above smacks of original research. "The vast majority of these documents are authentic and everyone considers them so."? I guess you discount the very prominent U.S. Government disclaimer I posted? Last, please cease and desist your accusations of censorship. I have made repeated requests for you to stop personal attacks.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
csloat, Weekly Standard is very respected in Washington. Go to my user page and read the quotes. It is an investigative journal of the highest caliber. Even Democrats admit it. I am not making any leaps of illoglc. All of my statements have been well-sourced. Remember, you are not arguing with me alone. You argument is with 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry who says these documents are important and has caused him to change his mind on some things. RonCram 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The Weakly Standard is not respected as anything but an opinion rag. As for Bob Kerry, I don't see him trying to insert misinformation on wikipedia pages, so it appears the argument here is with you, not him. If you want to cite his opinion on a page where it is relevant, that's wonderful news, but I don't see how it affects the claims you keep insisting on here.-csloat 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It is very big of you to allow me to cite Bob Kerry's opinion. Now if you could only get Ryan to make the same concession. BTW, I did not have a problem with most of the changes you made to my first entry. But I do have a problem with censorship. If you really want to see this page reflect reality, then tell Ryan to knock off the censorship. RonCram 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ryan is not censoring you Ron; she has stated pretty clearly that if you want to put opinions in the article it is fine as long as it is marked as opinion. Your placing of the disputed content in the intro to this article stated as fact is what she and I both objected to. And please take a look at the timeline, Ron; as you can see, the information you are jumping up and down about is already discussed quite thoroughly. There is no need to give it undue prominence just because Bob Kerrey thinks it affected his thinking.
Also there is no need to take up this page with quotes from your user page; just link that page if you want. This is silly, though; a lot of quotes about how the magazine is a "must read" or "important." News flash -- nobody disagrees with that. I read it regularly too Ron, if only to foreshadow what kind of garbage you're going to try to impose on wikipedia this week. Hardly any of the quotes address its reputation for investigative journalism. But it doesn't matter - this isn't about finding quotes to form a bragsheet. This is about there being concrete evidence that Stephen Hayes and that magazine have consistently printed known lies and distortions. Professor Juan Cole, who is not given to attacking people without basis, calls Hayes a "notorious liar" for this very reason. And Hayes himself would admit that his journal is an organ of conservative opinion.--csloat 02:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, the NY SUN isn't a newspaper at all, it's a tabloid of roughly the same journalistic standards as the Onion, where as the New York Times has done nothing but bash liberals for at least a decade, they openly endorse everything from Intelligent Design, to George Bush himself--205.188.116.131 00:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The NY Times, according to the UCLA study, is the second most liberal newspaper in the country. I have not seen the NY Times endorse Intelligent Design or George Bush. Perhaps you confuse given credit where credit is due with an outright endorsement. Just a thought. As to the NY Sun, it may be published in a tabloid size format but that does not mean the journalism is the same as the National Enquirer. I honestly do not know much about their reputation, but their website looks just like any other big city newspaper. RonCram 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this article does need a re-write. The fact that that an article about Saddam Hussein's non-existant alliance with al-Qaeda is so bloated that it needs the "longish" template is a real problem. 71.236.33.191 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

High Praise for Weekly Standard

I'm tired of all the trash-talking about the Weekly Standard. Here are direct quotes in praise of Weekly Standard. "The preeminent political journal in America." —Slate.com

"The oracle of American politics" —CNN's Wolf Blitzer

"...The Weekly Standard has become a forceful presence in the world of political opinion...It is the most intelligent, aggressive and well-written publication out there." —National Journal

"Has The Weekly Standard become the most powerful magazine, Mara?" "Brit, it certainly has." —exchange between anchorman Brit Hume and reporter Mara Liasson, Fox News Channel

"The Standard's editors have inaugurated one of the most interesting Beltway debates in years." —The New Republic

"DC's opinion makers are reading The Weekly Standard." —PRWEEK

"[The Weekly Standard] is the magazine I get most grumpy about when it's not delivered." —Abe Rosenthal, former editor, The New York Times

"I don't think you can do without it if you want to know what's going on in Washington." —Robert Novak

"Widespread reaction to the editorial proved that of the roughly 65,000 people who read the Standard each week, many are what you might call important." —GQ Magazine

"The Weekly Standard is required reading up here. You have to see it to be a part of the conversation." —John Kasich, former House Budget Committee Chair

"[One of] Washington's better read political magazines" —The Economist

"The Weekly Standard is a must-read for people in Washington." —Jack Nelson, The Los Angeles Times

"The Weekly Standard [has] the advantage of possessing...editors whose insights and arguments are uncommonly provocative...[They] know Washington, know politics and have demonstrated over the years a rare capacity for civil and unusually sensible argument and analysis." —David Broder, The Washington Post

"...you speak in two very influential pulpits. You're on television a lot of the time...and you're the editor of an influential magazine." —Peter Jennings, ABC News [live interview with William Kristol]

"The Weekly Standard is a 'must read' for anyone interested in American politics and American life." —William J. Bennett

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RonCram"

  • The Standard is an ultra-partisan rag. It might be notable and influential, but it's a source of editorials, not facts. 71.236.33.191 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sewer

The 'Operation Iraqi Freedom documents' allegations and citations are not fact. There is no verification of the documents on which they are based:

"The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

So therefore the text as revert warred, which contains examples of third-party claims 'X claims Y' masked as factual, first hand assertions of 'Y is', is unverifiable. To represent these claims as fact is an outright and blatant falsehood, and a vulgar misuse of Wikipedia. Revert warring won't make it factual, any more than circular citations will. Keep the propaganda out.

When and if the documents are verified and the allegations they contained are corroborated, the talking points brought here will be valid - in the meantime, they are fetid and reek of misinformation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Below is the current text, edited by Ryan:

The U.S. government is currently releasing documents, called the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents', regarding which the Pentagon has cautioned it has made 'no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy.'" [7]. Some claim the unverified allegations contained in the documents suggest Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were willing to work together. Eight months after an alleged offer of operational partnership, U.S. forces in the region were attacked by al-Qaeda operatives. Another unauthenticated document has been described by some as a statement by Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative, about al-Qaeda's capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the U.S. It is not not known for certain if the recipients of the letter were Iraqi officials, making any ties to Iraq unclear. [8] 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey has said these documents will further enlighten us on the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. These documents, whose contents have not been verified or certified by the Pentagon, have been suggested by some to challenge the conclusion of the Intelligence Community that no "operational" ties existed. [9]

I think this is an improvement over the Roncram&Co. version (nice of you to invite your friends to your little edit war, by the way, sometimes using language that makes it clear this is all a game of annoy-the-liberals to you rather than a somewhat serious endeavor to discuss issues accurately). However there are a couple of things I don't understand: (1) Why is the Zubaydah document mentioned in the introduction to this piece? There is no indication this document ties Zubaydah to Iraq in any way. It is likely a speech or writing by Zubaydah that was published on an al Qaeda website that was printed out by an Iraqi bureaucrat, just like the FAS web site from 1997 that was copied in another document (and was wrongly interpreted by right-wing bloggers as a Mukhabarat manual even though it had the FAS logo on it). It is just plain scaremongering to put it in here (especially in the intro!), especially given that this document has not yet been the topic of speculation even in the Weakly Standard or even CNSNews. (2) The claim that "Eight months after an alleged offer of operational partnership, U.S. forces in the region were attacked by al-Qaeda operatives" is also scaremongering without substance. If we want to say the NYSun speculates that one of the documents makes this suggestion we might be closer to something, but we also need to make clear that the alleged "offer of operational partnership" was based on a meeting in 1995, and that we know that the talks between the two parties ended by 1998. We should also add for context the fact that nobody has ever even suggested Iraq was involved in the attacks 8 months later and that no evidence ever materialized of such an Iraqi connection. Mentioning one without the other is a flagrant example of invalid post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. (3) Bob Kerrey's change of heart is not an appropriate topic for the intro. This is about Saddam and AQ, not Bob Kerrey. If you feel it is important, let's have it in the timeline rather than the intro. Finally, I want to ask those of you who have come late to RonCram's little edit war party to please take note of the fact that his claim on your user pages that we are trying to censor information about these documents is mendacious. I have in fact inserted information on these documents into several places in the timeline over the last week, as is easily verified by a glance at the edit history. I have included information on both sides of the debate, contrary to RonCram's assertion that I am POV-pushing. I even included quotes from the Weakly Standard in my edits! It is completely disingenuous for me or Ryan to be accused of trying to suppress this information -- we have been insisting only that these issues be discussed in a level-headed manner. The additions Ron made to the page were not level headed. And his edit war on the page about the OIF Documents themselves is actually about him trying to suppress information, not me or Ryan. Look, there will be different points of view on these issues, but trying to raise group interest in an edit war is juvenile and futile. We would be a lot better off if we focused on improving the articles rather than trying to start edit wars with people we don't like. I myself have wasted way too much time on this edit war that would be better spent reading the IPP study, which has been released, and incorporating the relevant information on these pages.--csloat 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I've made a couple additions to the passage in question but I have not yet deleted the stuff about Zubaydah, the 8 month post hoc fallacious comment, and the Bob Kerrey material; I'd like to see what others have to say about this before deleting anything.--csloat 07:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So far nobody has offered any reason to keep the disputed parts of the paragraph. I will move the 8 month claim to a more appropriate place and delete the other two.--csloat 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse on the Zubaydah issue, but I notice the document collection also includes this document, apparently about "Israel's Nuclear Weapon Capabilities and Willingness to Use Them." Should we delete this article and get started on the Saddam Hussein and Israel Connection article? ;) -csloat 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think the horse is dead? He's just sleeping a really long time. Kevin Baastalk 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

csloat's stalking

Yes, csloat, I did invite some other editors to visit the page. I was tired of having you and Ryan tag team me in a ridiculous edit war designed to keep facts from readers. And it worked. We now have an entry that mentions the documents. It is cumbersome, redundant and poorly worded but it is much to be preferred over the silence imposed by Ryan and encouraged by you. However, I am bothered that you feel the need to stalk my contributions to other users talk pages. I have often wondered about you stalking me to other pages in the past but always tried to think the best of you. But when I see other editors complain of your stalking and then experience it myself, you make it difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt. In addition, I see that you still wish to delete well-sourced information - Zubaydah, the 8 month post and Bob Kerry. Have you changed your mind on the Kerry portion? Earlier you said you didn't mind posting his comments. And why would you want to delete the 8 month post when this was brought up by ABC News? RonCram 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Accusations, accusations - and nary a single instance of proof. Seems to be a very common problem surrounding these 'documents'. 'well-sourced'? The Sun isn't a source... it's a repeat of the Standard, and the government's claims. And the government said the documents cannot be verified or authenticated. Therefore your source, which asserts the documents as proof, is bogus. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ron, I'm sorry but that is just full of shit. Pardon my language. Please look up the wikipedia definition of "stalking" before you hurl accusations. Stalking does not mean checking on a user's contribution page to correct errors the user has introduced into wikipedia. It also does not mean editing pages that are on my watchilist, which is what has occurred in this case. Also, you will note that when the other user called me a stalker, he turned out to be wrong, and when I called him on it, he stopped responding, indicating not only that he could not substantiate his claim but that he probably felt some embarrassment in having made it in the first place (esp. since that user was caught lying about stalking me himself by using DNS entries). But that's really neither here nor there. I articulated clear and appropriate reasons for removing the three claims above. The 8 month claim perhaps belongs on the timeline but not in the intro; the other two don't seem to have any relevance to this page. As for Kerrey what I said was it was fine to put his opinion somewhere where it is notable. Nobody has established its relevance here.--csloat 18:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think that accusing someone of "stalking" is likely to cause offense. In addition, the behavior RonCram is denouncing in csloat is a natural response to the sort of behavior where you go from place to place repeating things to popularize an idea. --Mr. Billion 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Edit for size

Given this page's >100kb size, at the moment, would there be some agreement to have two entries? One for Saddam and AQ in general and one for Saddam & AQ & links to the 9/11 attacks. Just a thought as to how to get this thing into something manageable... Benny the Beaver 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Above under "Wikiquote" were some good ideas - I think at the very least we should remove the "Statements" section to a separate page. I don't think your suggestion will work because there will be conflict over what counts as a "9/11" connection; really all we would realistically have there is the prague meeting that never occurred. I would suggest breaking down by dates on the timeline.--csloat 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd almost be inclided to suggest AfD as the solution. Unfortunately, though the subject of this article is entirely ficticious, it's fiction that's quite notable due to prominent political leaders touting it as fact. 71.236.33.191 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest making the Timeline a separate article. The main article should be an overview. The Timeline fleshes that out with detail. Derex 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

'Agree.' The article should have the most important information at the top, no casual reader is going to dig through this crap. Like it or not we have to make some decision as to what is important about the relationship (or lack thereof).

Prague connection

TDC made some edits to the prague connection section, and he apparently believes that there is truth to the claim even though Cheney himself has backed off of it. His claim that the BIS still stands by the claim is not supported by the evidence he offers. Here is the offending line:

This claim, known as Prague connection, is generally considered to be false, although the former head of the Czech Stb, Jiri Ruzek, Foreign Minister Jan Kavan and Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek continue to stand by the claim. [10] [11]

The line used to read that Ruzek "continued to give credence to the report in 2003.[12]," which is supported by the slate article. I looked through the 2005 Opinion Journal piece that he added but I do not see any evidence that any of these people "continue to stand by the claim." I doubt that they do. The opinion journal piece indicates Ruzek threw the ball in the CIA's court, making it seem as though he is happy not to have to deal with that issue any more. Which is understandable; the article says he was furious that the Americans leaked what he considered raw intelligence that had not been verified, and of course it is well known that the Czechs being wrong about this became a political issue there. I have not changed this section back yet in case I am missing something -- can TDC explain where in the WSJ piece it substantiates that these guys still stand by the claim, which every other intel agency in the world considers false? It's pretty clear the whole thing is a huge embarrassment for the BIS, who seem to think the claim should never have been made public. James Risen notes that the whole thing "emerges as a complex Central European tale of political infighting among Czech leaders and feuding between rival intelligence services, topped off by a series of simple blunders and overheated statements that inadvertently fueled an American debate involving war and peace." (NYT 10/21/02). No responsible journalist seems to take the disputed claim seriously anymore. If there really is recent evidence to suggest someone still supporting the story, I'd like to see it. I also think we may need a separate page for this claim (even though I was originally against a "Prague Connection" page). --csloat 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag (nevermind)

Is this entire article disputed, or can the dispute be handled under a section npov tag? Can anyone tell me what the top one or two NPOV disputes are? Scanned current talk page, but archives are _long_. Derex 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any extant NPOV issues that have been raised recently for this page; I believe the npov tag was removed a while ago.--csloat 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, nevermind. Had two browser windows open to separate pages, and commented on the wrong page. I think I wanted to ask about Plame affair, or some such. Derex 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike Scheuer

Can someone please explain how it improves the intro to have information about Scheuer in there? His 2002 book was never cited in relation to the Saddam/AQ connection in any news source at all until well after he wrote his 2004 book and was asked about it on a talk show. There seems to be no reason to include this paragraph in the introduction to this page, since it is not at all more than a footnote to this story. Perhaps on the timeline there is a place for it, if someone thinks it's important in some way? If someone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.--csloat 07:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, Michael Scheuer's conclusions that Saddam and Osama cooperated was discussed in Scheuer's book and in television interviews. You know full well these facts. The reason this needs to be in the Intro is that it introduces the fact this is a controversial subject about which people inside and outside the CIA disagreed. It is clear that you want readers to think the whold Intelligence Community had reached the same conclusion, but that simply is not true. Your deletion of the material is purely POV.RonCram 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
They have been mentioned exactly twice in all the times he has been interviewed, and these interviews have never been mentioned in the mainstream press on the topic in 2002, and only mentioned in 2004 as a means of pointing out Scheuer's change in mind. You want to put it back in, put it on the timeline; it hardly belongs alongside the 911 Commission, the SSCI, or the conclusions of the major intelligence agencies in the intro. That's all I'm saying. Please stop pretending this has to do with POV.--csloat 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ron I just looked at (and fixed!) your edit, which was deceptive. You restored the Scheuer stuff and then deleted the info from the very article you included -- all the while accusing me of POV deletions! I'm leaving the Scheuer crap in, but please indicate some reason why it is as significant of the 2004 conclusions of all the major intel agencies and the 911 commission and even Scheuer himself. You are still pushing your line about Scheuer changing his mind, but you're migrating it over here from the Scheuer page. It is just a minor footnote to all of this; can you please explain to us why you think it belongs in the intro?--csloat 05:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Csloat, the way you have worded your comment is simply untrue. According to the Senate Report on Pre-War Intelligence, a Defense Intelligence Analyst wrote that the CIA analysis was pure crap that overemphasized philosophical differences to the point of disregarding credible evidence of cooperation. That did not come out of the Vice President's office and I think you know that. If you don't remember, it is only because you have forgotten.RonCram 05:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't blame the DIA for faulty analysis; the link you presented to a Lake interview mentions the Pentagon's group (i.e. Feith's office) and the VP's office, and not the DIA. I believe there was a DIA analyst who said something to the effect you are talking about (though they never said the CIA analysis was "pure crap," to my knowledge), but that is not what is referenced in the link you provided. The DIA itself, however, came to the same conclusion as the CIA, and the analyst who dissented appears to have given credence to the al-Libi testimony, which has since been discredited. Read the interview that you linked to, Ron; it has nothing to do with this rogue DIA analyst (who has since likely changed his mind, since the al-Libi testimony is no longer regarded as credible by anyone).--csloat 05:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, please don;t forget to tell us why you think a note about Scheuer changing his mind is important enough for the intro here?--csloat 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, the point here is that the existence and extent of a possible relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is a controversial subject. It was debated inside the Intelligence Community from the mid 1990s until now. I am not blaming the DIA for faulty analysis. I am siding with the DIA in blaming the CIA for faulty analysis (and not all the CIA - I think Scheuer was right in 2002). You are right the DIA analyst did not use the colorful term "pure crap." My memory was faulty. The DIA analyst says the CIA conclusions "should be ignored." The Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy were unsatisfied with work performed by CIA analysts and requested the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to assess intelligence reporting by CIA analysts. The DIA analyst assigned to the task reviewed the CIA product “Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship” and wrote:

The [“Murky”] report provides evidence from numerous intelligence sources over a decade on the interactions between Iraq and al-Qaida. In this regard, the report is excellent. Then in its interpretation of this information, CIA attempts to discredit, dismiss, or downgrade much of this reporting, resulting in inconsistent conclusions in many instances. Therefore, the CIA report should be read for content only -and CIA’s interpretation ought to be ignored.(page 308 of Senate Report)

csloat, the DIA analyst points to "numerous" sources over a decade. You are incorrect in assuming the evidence related only to al-Libi. BTW, there are many people in the Intelligence Community who believe al-Libi was telling the truth the first time and is lying now. The fact this relationship has been debated for years prior to and after 9/11 should not be kept from wikipedia readers.

At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, I will repeat myself again. The Scheuer info has to be in the Introduction because it introduces to the reader the fact that this is a controversial subject. Wikipedia does not avoid controversial subjects, it discusses why the subject is controversial. RonCram 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Ron, stop putting blatantly false information in the intro. You want this silly rogue DIA analyst mentioned, fine, but don't pretend she represents the DIA or that she was acting on a request for DIA analysis. She was acting on her own under the auspices of the OUSDP, not responding to a VP request and certainly not offering the DIA official conclusions -- the DIA didn't even consider her analysis credible.
Second, how long should the intro be? If you want this DIA analyst and Scheuer in there, certainly we should include the NSC red team study, the comments of Paul Pillar, and others which are far more significant than either of those. Scheuer's change of mind is interesting on the Scheuer page but not here, unless you think we should tell the whole story (i.e. that Scheuer came to the same conclusion as the rest of the CIA after he actually looked at more evidence, as he says in the interview.
Third, if you can point to anyone in the intel community who believes al-Libi was telling the truth about the Iraq-AQ relationship the first time, I'd love to see it. You are just making stuff up now.
Fourth, this is not the "umpteenth time" for anything. You recently added the Scheuer junk to the intro and never defended it until now. And your defense is wrong. You have made the intro less readable for no reason other than to harp on your pet peeve about Mr. Scheuer. It is strange how this person bothers you so much, yet you refuse to even read his book to find out if you are right about anything he says. Anyway it is not relevant here. Your claim that Scheuer alerts the reader to the fact that this subject is controversial is nonsense; all it does is alert the reader that someone they have never heard of changed his mind between 2002 and 2004, and doesnt bother to discuss why.--csloat 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Needs Fixin'

News reports indicate that the Bush Administration was getting competing analysis of the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda during the leadup to the Iraq war -- the analysis of the CIA, which had found no credible evidence of collaboration, and the analysis of a "circle of neoconservatives" without professional intelligence experience operating out of the Pentagon and the Vice President's Office, who reviewed some of the evidence that had been examined by the CIA and reached the opposite conclusion.[8]

The bolded section really needs to be reworked. These are descriptions from one reporter and one source, yet presented as both majority view and absolutely accurate. I tried to give it a go in my head as how to phrase it, and it was permanently mangled. Perhaps someone else can weigh in?
I editted it so that at least the Wikipedia text matches the text from the reference link.
The referenced link does in fact call them a "circle of neoconservatives" and notes that they have no relevant intelligence analysis experience.--csloat 01:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please show me where in the referenced link they note that they have no relevent intelligence analysis experience.
On re-reading, I believe this is what I was referring to: "They believe that as the intelligence professionals that they [the CIA] have the training and analytical skills to present an unbiased, non-political version of the intelligence to the president from which he can make these sorts of decisions." I think you're right though, it's actually saying the CIA does have the relevant intel experience; it leaves the reverse implication up to the reader. --csloat 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the assertions in the link, the main problem is that is the opinion of -one- reporter. Yet, it is represented fact, and undisputed at that. Arkon 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is far more than the opinion of one reporter. (See also Office of Special Plans.) I think what you mean is that only one citation was provided, which is the norm. Can you verify your claim that it is disputed? Kevin Baastalk 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is the fact that this is an opinion stated as fact that is the problem. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and even the link to OSP is a collection of axe grinders complaints. Hardly justification for this opinion to fact conversion.Arkon 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the opinion of one reporter. It is a well established fact. The OSP is not the myth of some axe-grinders! It actually existed, and nobody disputes that the people involved are a circle of neoconservatives.--csloat 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, I never stated or insinuated that the OSP was a myth. I disputed Kevin using the assertions in that article (which -is- full of axe-grinder's complaints) to justify stating the opinion of one reporter as fact. Arkon 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes. These straw men can be rather irrational at times. Kevin Baastalk 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at the OSP article and I agree it is full of complaints with little substantive analysis. The people complaining are not "axe-grinders" and their complaints are legitimate, but I agree it is a terrible article. I also agree that the opinion of the reporter is better stated as an opinion (and I have made that appropriate change). Finally, I would be happy removing that section, and the one about the rogue DIA analyst, entirely; these items are already mentioned in the article body and really are not notable enough for the introduction.--csloat 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No, its a widely propagated opinion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
TDC nobody disputes the fact that the OSP existed and that they did an end-run around the real intel agencies. And nobody disputes that they are neocons, not even any of the people actually involved! Anyway I have made clear what is an "opinion" in my edit, but to pretend that the competing analysis was from a host of unrelated sources as your edit did is absolutely mendacious (in fact, your edit made it sound like the Pentagon and State Departmnent themselves came to official conclusions about the matter which is totally false - the State Dept's intel agency came to the same conclusion as the CIA). The OSP actually existed, whether or not you wish to believe it. And the official conclusions of every real intelligence agency that looked into it disputed their conclusions. In any case I would be happy to remove that paragraph altogether as well as the one following it if that material is problematic.--csloat 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, lets try it without the interjection of your POV then shall we? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The point that needs to be made is that this is a controversial subject. The article itself provides interesting insight into the controversy even if the writer does use somewhat inflammatory language with "circle of neoconservatives." The point is that the Bush Administration was getting raw intelligence reports and analysis that indicated a cooperative relationship existed. RonCram 01:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The point that the subject is "controversial" has been made over and over again. I really don't think the "controversy" has much balance, however; every investigative agency in the world that has examined this has found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda, while a small group of individuals whose ideologies are exactly the same (let's call them a "circle of neoconservatives" if you like) believed otherwise. The latter turned out to be incorrect.--csloat 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon edits on the intro

This has gotten out of control. I think it is imperative that anyone wishing to add POV material to the intro should first read the rest of the timeline. I have made corrections (and left out the so-called "slur" the anon objected to), but this is just going to go on forever. I would be happy to take this disputed material out of the intro entirely and go back to how it was a few days ago; otherwise, if others keep adding junk that is already discussed in the timeline I will have to keep adding the context. Perhaps a separate section for the Office of Special Plans would be useful here. I really don't think this stuff belongs in the intro at all; soon the intro will be as long as the timeline if people keep adding things. A clear and simple summary of the controversy and the conclusions of major investigations is fine. (By the way, I removed the fact tag on the CIA claim since the NPR cite confirms it; it is also confirmed below in the timeline.)

Anon editor, if you are reading the talk page, can you please enter dialogue here rather than making drive-by edits? Thanks.--csloat 16:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Someone added the NPOV tag a while ago but I see nothing in talk justifying it. If someone wants to add that tag, please explain in Talk what the NPOV problem is and how it can be remedied. That way the tag does not become the default state of the article. Also, it is better to use the tag on a particular section that has a problem rather than the whole article (esp with an article of this size). Thanks.--csloat 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More anon edits

An anon editor keeps changing the intro offering cryptic edit summaries and refusing to respond in talk about these changes. I do not wish to have a revert war over this, but some of the changes are incorrect. The CIA made very clear that its analysts believed there was no evidence of a Saddam/AQ connection. The Dec 9 2005 NYT article states clearly that the DIA concluded that al-Libi "was intentionally misleading his debriefers." The intel based on Libi's statements was withdrawn publicly by the CIA in March 2004. The anon editor seems intent on creating a false impression with the intro, as if al-Libi's testimony were still considered credible. As far as I can tell, there is nobody on earth who believes it is, certainly nobody in CIA or DIA. I'd like to once again ask the anon editor to explain him/herself. It would also be nice if s/he would sign in and participate in the dialogue on this page rather than continuing drive-by POV edits.--csloat 22:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(precise CIA action) 75.3.203.207 22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anon user, thank you for looking at this page. The above is an example of a cryptic edit summary. Can you please read and respond to the above regarding your edits? You have not explained your deletions, and the above does not really say anything. Thanks.--csloat 22:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Intro good introd
Intro good introduction length of is

Iraq War Poll

There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here: [13] -- Mr. Tibbs 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

i'm new to this page, so i didn't want to make any edits without knowing if a consensus had been reached through debate with regards to the intro paragraph. the first sentence is followed by five links, plus the sentence contains a link as well. six links in the opening sentence is a bit odd to me. is there a reason for this? also, why is a reference to the "downing street memo" in the intro? i think the intro could be rewritten and simplified. thoughts?Anthonymendoza 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The links were added after a user complained that there was not enough evidence to support the point. I agree, one link is more than enough on that obvious a point. As for the DSM reference, I'm not sure who added that; it seems to have been included to support the claim that there was pressure on intelligence agencies to manipulate the Saddam/AQ data. That claim is discussed in the timeline. I'm not sure the DSM is that important in the intro, though I do think the claim of pressure is reasonable. If you want to give it a shot at rewriting, go for it -- as you can guess, it has been heavily rewritten and contested many times, but it is still far from ideal.--csloat 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

May-July 2002

this section desperately needs to be rewritten. it's incoherent. i'll get the ball rolling.Anthonymendoza 17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what was "incoherent" about it? I don't have a problem with most of your changes, but I don't think they added coherence per se. I did restore a couple things that were deleted, probably inadvertently. I do think there are organizational problems that might be remedied if the timeline were broken off into a seperate article and this article was reorganized thematically, with a Zarqawi/A-I section. There are a couple main issues here -- (1) Zarqawi's relationship with al-Qaeda, and (2) Zarqawi's (non)relationship with Saddam. The organization of that section should deal with each of these in turn.--csloat 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
i shouldn't have used the word "incoherent". you said it best; the section has an organizational problem. it's too long and too much info is crammed into the paragraph. it should be broken up.Anthonymendoza 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)